"Finally, the government must step up to the mark - with competitions, funding and support so that the most promising technologies are fast tracked and the intellectual property secured. The government needs to put the right money in the right place, now, to ensure engineers can pull the rabbit out of the hat and create a sustainable future."

Yes, please keep giving us your money, because somehow our miraculous energy-efficient sustainable new products can't actually get to and survive in the marketplace on their own merits. Funny, that.

Posted by Jon J, Friday, 27 April 2012 7:32:00 AM

He makes good vacs and yes, we all like energy efficiency..but asking for Governments to fund his company albeit in a round about way is a bit demeaning. No James, we don't want to fund your low carbon ideas, we don't want to fund anyones low carbon ideas. Be a good businessman and put the money in yourself, if you believe in you ideas that is. The market will decide.

Posted by Atman, Friday, 27 April 2012 9:50:07 AM

[Deleted for multiple posting.]

Posted by PEST, Friday, 27 April 2012 10:38:36 AM

Isn't that interesting. We know this bloke had at least one good idea, & the determination to see that idea through to completion. But we must question what he is up to now.

Has he been too busy to keep up his reading, & do the math to see that global warming is either a blind alley, or a complete fraud&

Is he just another smarty trying to get on the band wagon/gravy train, & sit back as the money rolls in?

Or is he cynical enough to decide that the more gravy he laps up, the less the com men will get?

What ever it is, to me it is a pity that he is not looking hard enough, then getting out there helping stop the fraud. What a pity.

Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 27 April 2012 10:51:18 AM

Its the same old story! Ignore already existing endlessly sustainable alternative systems based on current known science, and in operation elsewhere! We are an innovative lot and have invented a 2 tank system that treats all the biological waste from a high rise, village or small suburb. Because it is a closed system the process creates no unpleasant or any discernible smell factor. The problem with previous applications? Located at the lowest possible level to exclude energy wasting pumps, the first tank around the size of a shipping container, maintains an internal temperature of around 32C; the second tank of equal modest size, is kept by internal processes at around 55C. The methane endlessly created by a natural biological process can be stored in a simple bladder; to be fed into a ceramic fuel cell, [more Aussie innovation,] and create on demand electricity and free domestic hot water. The addition of food scraps/wastage creates a saleable energy surplus! reticulated coal fired power coupled to transmission line losses arrives, with just a 20% efficiency and costs 3-5 cents per kilowatt hour to create. Whereas, the described alternative has a 60% efficiency rating, the highest in the world, and therefore once the capital outlays, [shared,] are completely recovered, the costs are around one third of coal fired power. Moreover, because it is a completely local application, with no moving parts to wear out; the maintenance costs are just a tiny fraction of those imposed by centralised privatised power provision. Also ignored is the local manufacturing and equally massive installation business opportunities, legislative outcomes could produce? Any water used is sterilised by the process and is therefore recyclable as is, for non potable applications, such as nearby algae farming/bio diesel production. The completely sanitised high carbon solid waste is also a saleable carbon rich soil improver, which has all the nasty smell factors and pathogens, removed by the process, which is already in operation overseas; albeit, connected to stationary engines, which do eventually wear out and or are not as energy efficient. Rhrosty.

Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 27 April 2012 11:53:54 AM

James, I’m sorry to have to break this news to you but……………!

It is not about science, engineering, economics, renewables or carbon dioxide emissions. It’s about international power politics.

Don’t subscribe to this? OK then, who declared the following?

“It is an all-encompassing socialist scheme to combine social welfare programs with government control of private business, socialized medicine, national zoning controls of private property and restructuring of school curriculum which serves to indoctrinate children into the politically correct group think”

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations”

Next.

Posted by spindoc, Friday, 27 April 2012 12:46:24 PM

The methane endlessly created by a natural biological process can be stored in a simple bladder; to be fed into a ceramic fuel cell,Rhosty,I saw several of these in Indonesia. Although not quite as refined as you describe but nevertheless, they're making good use of the gas. I suppose in Australia we don't have to do that because we're so clever or so I keep reading.

Posted by individual, Friday, 27 April 2012 4:52:30 PM

It was interesting that at the end of the doco the ABC showed the other night - Can I Change Your Mind? - that the one thing Minchen and Rosie agreed on was that we'd be better off not burning fossil fuels, irrespective of whether there was global warming or not.

I would have thought this was something that we could all agree on without respect to where we stand on global warming. At some stage fossil fuel becomes largely too valuable to burn, and then we need a fall back.

The way universities are funded these days, there definitely has to be a role for government funding in the research into replacements.

Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 28 April 2012 8:43:46 AM

Graham, don't tell me you are now falling for this push for central planning.

I can not think of a single development of any major item that has come from government control of research direction.

It does not take much looking to find that all the costly, stupid blind alleys we are rushing down today have had seed money, or major funding by government.

Example, wind power, a total loss.

Wave power, ask Spain.

Ethanol, destroying engines, & starving people.

We will never get major new ideas developed by government funded research because of the way research dollars are allocated. It is the old guard, who's "new ideas" if any all stopped 30 years ago, who do the allocation.

Once it becomes profitable to develop a new power source, or transport fuel, industry will do it.

If you need convincing, just think of the T model Ford, & the GM Volt. the first devised by a businessman/dreamer, the second devised by government direction & subsidy.

Government picking winners always ends in expensive failure, because of the type of people who go into politics, & public funded employment. People who won't bet their own shirt on their dreams, will never develop anything, just profit from the effort of others.

Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 28 April 2012 10:57:20 AM

Individual; thanks mate for the input. Ethiopia became a barren lunar landscape, caused by survival mode deforestation and eating habits, during repeated droughts! [Compounded by "GREEN" preferred agrarian culture modelling?] Well, Ethiopians live virtually hand to mouth from agriculture, with a few artisans providing the essential tools and equipment, cooking utensils etc. Exactly the preferred model as described by Jet setting GREEN activist David Suzuki?Simple methane producing digesters provided as part of our international aid program, would have at the very least replaced the health damaging open wood fires, which in turn would have preserved the forests and natural habitat of so many now extinct species. Myriad very small dam projects, would have provided some water during these extended dry periods by literally forcing it into the landscape; from where it would gradually leak out during extended dry periods, to sustain some agriculture outcomes or self sufficiency? It is often said give a man a fish and you fed him for a day, but provide him with a fishing boat, [or its agricultural equivalent,] and you fed him and his family for a life time. Even if that agricultural equivalent was very low water use algae farming/bio-diesel production, which would provide cash flows or incomes, all while actually helping to actually address climate change. I mean, algae absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight and under optimised conditions, virtually double that body weight every 24 hours.Finally, future modelling and or preferred GREEN outcomes, need to be scientifically examined in light of Ethiopian/sub Sahara outcomes, and perhaps jettisoned as climate change, changes all the relied on dynamics? Doing what you've always done all while expecting a different outcome is simply madness! Quote unquote. Cheers, Rhrosty.

Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 28 April 2012 11:08:42 AM

Graham, it’s always a safe bet to point to the fact that carbon fuels are finite and should be replaced at some stage with something else. I can’t imagine you would ever get any objection to that.

Your next caveat is <<irrespective of whether there was global warming or not>>. Which should read, “whether or not there was man made global warming”? Again I doubt you get any objections at all. Unless of course you cannot show evidence and have to invoke “the precautionary principle”

Your premise depends entirely on the separation of any known imperative other than it is a finite resource. All too late I’m afraid, that will never be allowed. This is an omelet that can never be unscrambled because the vested interests have crafted it that way over 20 or 30 years.

There exists a vast and well funded international network whose very existence, power and financial well being depends totally on the premise that there is global warming and it is man made.

These include elected governments, non-elected governing representatives, industrial opportunists, media, academia, scientists, NGO’s and literally thousands of international, national, state and local bureaucratic regulators.

They exist not because of the search for replacements for carbon based fuels, but because of political and financial gain derived from making people pay for CO2 emissions. It is naïve to suggest that this can be dismantled to make way for a valuable but essentially benign initiative to replace fossil fuels.

In any event whatever funds could have been made available for such activities over the past 30 years have already been poured down the gurgler with no market ready solutions, just enormous liabilities. The developed world has been driven into austerity and is scrambling to revert to fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no political stomach for any more “March of Folly”. This one is a dead parrot, an ideology that will be left to whither on the vine. The international political interests that seek to use this particular “sustainability” mantra will just have to find something else.

Global Cooling anyone?

Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 28 April 2012 11:25:12 AM

>>I can not think of a single development of any major item that has come from government control of research direction.<<

But you've probably handled a lot: our marvelous plastic banknotes were developed by the RBA, University of Melbourne and the dreaded CSIRO.

Cheers,

Tony

Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 28 April 2012 3:36:34 PM

Sorry Tony, the bank notes are an application of a material.

The material was developed by a chemist in a polymer lab.

Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 28 April 2012 3:54:10 PM

>>The material was developed by a chemist in a polymer lab.<<

Yes: a CSIRO chemist in a CSIRO polymer lab. From the CSIRO website:

>>CSIRO’s expertise in polymer and synthetic chemistry was used to develop a non-fibrous and non-porous plastic film, which the banknotes are printed on.<<

Cheers,

Tony

Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 28 April 2012 4:15:13 PM

Again I must refer to very old technology. We were able to produce hydrogen long before we had electricity and or electrolysis? The older method blew up a few labs and therefore was junked in favour of electrolysis? The addition of Co2 into the flow sheet eliminated most of the explosive consequences. The advantage of the method which cracks the water molecule, is the fact that it could be done very cheaply utilising endlessly available ocean water; and equally endless solar thermal power, in a flameless process thoroughly tamed with modern technology? I mean, we already crack the hydrocarbon in near city refineries; to produce various even more volatile fuel, petrol, diesel and avgas! Nonetheless, if current electrolysis is preferred; then it can be made cheaper utilising cobalt as an assisting catalyst. One of the current problems with hydrogen is, there are around 20% energy losses, when the hydrogen is fed into your fuel cell. However, adding a cobalt catalyst into the electrolysis production side, [proven science,] halves the energy requirement input for the same energy output production; meaning, we could conceivably set up a completely closed cycle system of much less weight and size of a conventional combustion engine; and, actually obtain a net energy return of around 30%, from an enhanced catalyst assisted process. Imagine, current petrol engines burn up to 85% of the available calorific energy spinning the flywheel and transmission, with only around 15% spinning the wheels. What sort of power and torque would we obtain, if we could apply; say 25%, to the driving wheels, with the remaining 5% reserved for battery recharging, lights, air conditioning, and inboard entertainment? There is a very real possibility that we could create a system as described, and never ever have to refuel the family wagon again? Imagine, no refuelling and no emissions travel, with only tyre and battery changes required? Oil peak? So what? Rhrosty.

Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 28 April 2012 5:16:16 PM

Yes Graham, sooner or later we will have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, whether people believe in AGW or not.

Quite frankly, I for one found 'I Can Change Your Mind About Climate Change' as predictable as the comments that followed.

Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 28 April 2012 6:15:19 PM

This article is like a breath of fresh air. Wouldn't it be great to think that government and industry could get their respective acts together in the spirit of cooperation and necessity and find sustainable solutions.

We've got a long way to go, but it's nice to know that some of those at the cutting edge of research and development realise the exigencies inherent in our predicament.

(Hiya, bonmot - good article link :)

Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 28 April 2012 7:50:03 PM

Wow, that's pretty good Tony, what did they do for the rest of the month. If producing a bit of plastic paper is their great claim to fame this year, when do we shut them down, for wasting millions.

Rhrosty, your well up with all this pie in the sky stuff, aren't you. Having too many ideas & chasing them is a sure way to find yourself with only your tail in your mouth in the long run.

I do rather like the idea of using algae to produce fuel, fed by power house CO2, & it could make productive much of our desert areas, however the other greenies will give hell if you try doing anything useful out there.

As for hydrogen, talk to Honda. They have spent hundreds of millions trying to develop a safe way of using the stuff, without a pay day. What makes you think a bunch of public servants will do any better?

When it's cheaper, & produces more power from my dollars worth, call me, otherwise it's just another pipe dream. Great for private investment, but keep my taxes out of it thanks.

Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 28 April 2012 9:14:36 PM

Hasbeen, has the irony that you are using a method of communicating that was developed by the government - the Internet - to dispute the proposition that government funding can produce anything useful, ever struck you?

Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 29 April 2012 12:35:16 AM

>>Wow, that's pretty good Tony, what did they do for the rest of the month. If producing a bit of plastic paper is their great claim to fame this year, when do we shut them down, for wasting millions.<<

About the same time we shut down the LHC. It has wasted billions and it has failed to find the Higgs boson: even if it does where is the all-important profit in that? You can't buy or sell a Higgs boson. While we're at it we should shelve the plans for the SKA: the cost of a radio telescope is astronomical and you can't buy or sell stars. But we can't just pick on the physicists. A lot of medical research is Government funded so that will all have to go. In fact the government funds research in all sorts of fields. But I guess the private sector will make up the shortfall if we just go ahead and shut it all down.

Of course we'd have to shut down all Government military research as well: you can't buy or sell things that are Top Secret or you get arrested for treason. I seem to recall that RADAR was developed through Government funded military research: it is of great commercial importance. And I bet that nasty little Commie Howard Florey was in the pocket of the central planning authority when he and his comrades figured out how to mass produce penicillin.

Science isn't there to make money: it's there to make knowledge. The knowledge can be used to make better tools and toys and that is where the money is to be made. But that usually comes somewhere down the line and it's usually somebody other than the scientists making that money. Sometimes the knowledge isn't useful for making better stuff: I think that's OK because knowledge has its own value and I think you'd be pleasantly surprised at how little of your tax dollar goes towards research and development.

Cheers,

Tony

Posted by Tony Lavis, Sunday, 29 April 2012 1:16:39 AM

It's even more ironic than you think, GrahamY…

The Internet and much of computing is not merely indebted to DARPA, but very much to Turing and others at Bletchley Park, much of whose work was based on predecessors ideas, including Charles Babbage's Analytic and Difference Engines.

"By 1822 the English mathematician Charles Babbage was proposing a steam driven calculating machine the size of a room, which he called the Difference Engine. This machine would be able to compute tables of numbers, such as logarithm tables. He obtained government funding for this project due to the importance of numeric tables in ocean navigation. By promoting their commercial and military navies, the British government had managed to become the earth's greatest empire.…

It was hoped that Babbage's machine could eliminate errors in these types of tables. But construction of Babbage's Difference Engine proved exceedingly difficult and the project soon became the most expensive government funded project up to that point in English history. Ten years later the device was still nowhere near complete, acrimony abounded between all involved, and funding dried up. The device was never finished."

Sometimes the payback period on the investment can be longer than anyone could imagine.

Posted by WmTrevor, Sunday, 29 April 2012 7:07:14 AM

As an engineer having worked in electrical generation, distribution and efficient use for decades I am gratified in the faith that the greens have in me and my ilk to resolve the world's problems.

Unfortunately while there have been huge strides forward in efficiency and cost the second law of thermodynamics are not just a speed bump that that ingenuity can overcome, but a brick wall.

Wind turbines can get bigger and cheaper, but the cost of the land, the copper to collect the power, and the labor to install and maintain these systems which now makes up most of the cost is not getting cheaper, the wind is not blowing more reliably, the sun not shining stronger.

I have been following renewable energy generation since I was a 14 year old student at open university presentations 35 years ago and the limiting problems being discussed then haven't changed, and the issues around providing reliable cost effective base load are a long long way from being met by renewables, and renewables are many decades from being a viable alternate to coal and gas.

The only cost effective, reliable low carbon generation system that has a prayer of reducing carbon emission by 2050 is nuclear. The longer the greens oppose nuclear and push renewables as the only alternative, the further away the low carbon future will get.

Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 29 April 2012 10:07:48 AM

Many Physicists postulate that the known universe came into being from nothing; yet baulk at the idea someone somewhere may eventually find ways to defeat the law of thermal dynamics? Catalytic assisted outcomes may well help that development; or prove that that formerly held as impossible, will become possible. We once believed powered flight was impossible, and look just how far we've progressed since the first Wright Brothers' Kitty Hawk. Could anyone conceive just a single century ago, that planes weighing over fifty tons could ply the sky, flying at forty thousand feet and above. Who back then would have conceived of the transmission without wires; of voice, pictures and text, or a man walking on the moon? Today we confront an immediate future, where computing power will be compared with the known universe; and perhaps even enable us to unlock the secrets of all 11 dimensions? Which may led to things like anti gravity/ artificial gravity? Warp drives and interstellar travel; and the pioneering of space; or even perpetual motion? There is a place for even more Govt funding in the area of science, which has provided so much of what we take for granted today; including almost miraculous life saving medicine! Perhaps an entirely independent body could be created to oversee or decide who and what gets any available funding. Rhrosty.

Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 29 April 2012 11:53:56 AM

Rhrosty,

Your post is laughable. I would dare to say that you have no engineering or scientific background.

All you mention are discoveries and inventions, none of which even approach the boundaries of the basic laws of physics that have been in place for a century. If you are linking renewables being a viable replacement for fossil fuels to a unified field theory, then perhaps you are right, and we should expect it in 2100 or later, if ever.

Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 29 April 2012 12:12:20 PM

SM,

"Your post is laughable...."

How's this for an explanation of wireless communication?

"The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the tail in New York and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless telegraph is the same, only without the cat."

Sometimes minds who toy with the laughably absurd are the greatest of them all...just ask Einstein.

Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 29 April 2012 12:43:47 PM

Shadow,

Just a query from an interested passer-by .

On “I can change your mind about climate change” the other night, there was a claim made/cited that the Indian, US & Chinese Departments of Energy (or the like) had predicted that by 2020 (?) solar power would be more economical than fossils fuels – what is your take on this?

Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 29 April 2012 1:01:15 PM

If we adopt renewable energy production because current fossil fuels are causing catastrophic global warming, then the imperative changes to “doing something sooner than when current fuel supplies run out”.

This leaves us with the question, so how soon is soon? Well, very soon say some, others say it’s already too late. Then some say current fuel stocks will run out in 30 to 100 years, some say we are approaching peak oil, some say we have passed peak oil.

But we can use gas can’t we? Some say NO, because that also emits CO2. Some say we could use nuclear power, some say NO that is too dangerous, even though there are 1,000 reactors in service already say some and France is 84% nuclear?

Some say there is no evidence anywhere on the planet, of commercially/economically available renewable sources? Rubbish say others, there is the err….., then there is the err….., Oh! and don’t forget there is the err…., and don’t forget the erm, err …….

Well, if we just spent more money on research say some. Others say but we have been pouring public money into this for at least 40 years, surely they have an answer by now? Well they DO say some, it’s just that we can’t afford them.

So how can we make it cheaper? Well, say some, we just need to build more of it so that the economics of scale kick in. You mean we can pour even more money into something that is too expensive to build and use, so we can make it cheaper? But say others, this is silly and would mean that renewable energy would have to not only generate electricity, it would also have to generate profit in order to pay back the public funded capital costs?

Some say that all over the world, there are Countries abandoning wind farms and solar power as it is too expensive for the electricity they generate, maintenance costs are very high and inconsistent with austerity stressed economies. Many cannot even afford to dismantle or dispose of them.

Continued:-

Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 29 April 2012 1:33:59 PM

Continued:-

Some say Germany is now generating more electricity from brown coal (Lignite) and that this is now their No1 fuel source, up 3.3%? That can’t be right?

Some say that Denmark is exporting most of its wind farm electricity at no cost to Sweden and Norway as it is generated when not needed? That can’t be right?

Some say that Spain has capped both electricity prices AND renewable subsidies because they can’t afford either, their energy funding debt is now E27bn. That can’t be right?

Some say the entire British on-shore wind farm fleet last winter, generated minus 0.6% of their electricity needs because they had to take power from the national grid to spin-up the static turbines. That can’t be right?

Some say that shale gas reserves in the USA will supply domestic needs for 650 years, with similar estimates in the UK and some eastern European countries. That can’t be right?

Some say yes we can, some say you must be joking. I personally think that all those who want renewables should pay for it. How about we run all the pilot programs in Tasmania?

The Chinese of course will not allow that, because their Chinese state owned coal industry now owns 75% of the two largest wind farms in Tasmania. Didn’t share that one with us did you Bob Brown? That can’t be right”

At some stage the liars and the bullshiffers will leave the field of play in disgrace, in the meantime we will just have to put up with them. But that can’t be right?

Enough already.

Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 29 April 2012 1:34:49 PM

Poirot,

That technology has advanced in leaps and bounds and will continue to do so is not in dispute. However, this has all been within the bounds of the physical laws of nature. There is more than a subtle difference between the incredible and the impossible.

SPQR,

I heard a similar prediction in 1980 that this would be achieved by 2000. It also doesn't solve the problem of the sun not shining at night. The present cost of solar salt generation is still 10x that of fossil fuels. The cost of PV panels may make generation cheaper than reticulated power in the suburbs.

Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 29 April 2012 1:57:38 PM

Actually and factually Shadow, I have tertiary qualifications in three separate disciplines, including medicine, law and science. My averaged passing marks in my final medicals averaged 98% and as such, broke a record that had stood un-assailed and unassailable for around seventy years, in the organisation that trained/taught me. I've had my IQ measured on no less than three occasions, which was met with incredulous disbelief on two occasions and recorded as third highest on the third. I don't say this just to big note; given one's IQ is a gift from nature, which all to often is accompanied by lots of downside. Like other students trying to bring you down to size with physical or so-called intellectual bullying, which always seems to be very personal and very much your particular forte, Shadow? Just as well you didn't place a real bet pal; given it would have cost you your house and everything else? We have since the dawn of time; had "experts", who always knew all the disparaging reasons something couldn't be done or wouldn't work. Personally, I prefer the other expert explanation, which goes, an X is an unknown quantity and a spurt is mere a very big drip under extreme pressure? Rhrosty.

Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 29 April 2012 2:30:24 PM

Come on Graham & others, you're talking about a few threads around the edges of development. Sure war & the space program drove development of inventions, but the real break through has always came from individuals.

I'm talking about really important break through like steam power, railways, the internal combustion engine, motor transport, heavier than air flight, commercial electrical power generation & distribution, the telephone, radio, Computer operating systems, etc. None of this was government development, & neither will a new power source be, although government may develop what ever is found.

Things like the internet were not actually a government initiative, although publicly funded people may have done it, out of private/academic interest, & neither was space flight/rocketry, although quite probably the latter would not have got off the ground, [like it], without the tax payer.

And yes the CSIRO did great things with plant breeding & development, but after an individual started it & showed the way.

So now give me the major developments, leading to the modern world that came from an an idea thought of by government. Do try to come up with something better than as bank note

Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 29 April 2012 3:18:51 PM

>>but the real break through has always came from individuals.<<

And we all know that the Government doesn't employ individuals: it employs androids - soulless automatons who appear human but don't think like us normal people. I should know: my brother works for the Government.

>>I'm talking about really important break through<<

RADAR isn't important enough? Exactly how important does something have to be? How do we measure importance?

Cheers,

Tony

Posted by Tony Lavis, Sunday, 29 April 2012 4:35:25 PM

Always something new coming along http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=24900.phpBaseload thorium nuclear power is needed for awhile after fossil fuels deplete so over the next 100 years or so alternatives will increasingly fill all needs. Maybe even fusion will kick in by then.

Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 29 April 2012 7:42:11 PM

Rhosty,

For all your supposed qualifications, you are proposing the fantastical as government policy.

With a science degree you should know that improvements in theoretical physics tend not to overthrow previous theories completely, but rather describe anomalies better. General relativity replaced Newtonian physics, because of anomalies at high speeds and gravities etc but for most application Newtonian methods are still used as they sufficiently accurately describe the real world and are simple to use. Similarly with thermodynamics, better theories may well come along, but they are unlikely to describe our reality significantly differently. (it may describe better what happens on the event horizon of black holes, but not shed great light on the performance of a wind turbine.)

Even if PV cells became so cheap that they were free, the majority of the cost is in the transmission of the power, and it would still struggle to be cheaper than fossil fuels. Even for the existing coal based systems, the transmission makes up about 50% of the cost to our cities, and about 90% to our homes.

If a tiny portion of the vast sums spent on renewable research was spent on nuclear, we could have safe nuclear plants and realistically reduce CO2 emissions.

Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 30 April 2012 4:55:16 AM

In "The low carbon generation", James Dyson wrote 27 April 2012:

>Engineers and scientists are being reinvented by green expectations ...

Don't leave out us green computer professionals!

> ... First, we need to secure the workforce ...

We can use technology to help train up engineers and other professionals. In 2008 the Australian Computer Society (ACS) commissioned me to write an online training course on green computing. The course materials were made open access for free use by anyone and the course is now offered by the Australian National University, Athabasca University (Canada) and ACS. The latest version is published as "ICT Sustainability: Assessment and Strategies for a Low Carbon Future": http://www.tomw.net.au/ict_sustainability/introduction.shtml

> Finally, the government must step up to the mark ... intellectual property secured. ...

One way the government can help spread the technology is by securing the IP and then giving it away with open access licenses. This way government can fund fundamental work and encourage competing companies to cooperate on the basics, before companies compete to commercially exploit the results. This has worked well in the computer industry, for example with creation of the Internet (initially a government funded venture).

Engineers from competing companies already get together to develop standards for everyone to use, such as:

Deriving energy from wavepower is relatively quite simple and abundant. The main difficulty is shifting investment funds from fossil fuels, which will not happen while the investors have a stake in government policy decisions (top dog wants to maintain the status quo, not shuffle the deck).

These and similar ideas will be locked away until we have a legitimate crisis. If this were not the case we would be using them now instead of introducing emissions schemes.

Posted by phooey, Sunday, 13 May 2012 8:49:21 AM

The second law of Thermodynamics says you CANNOT devise ANY such engineering solution. On a planet producing first world eligible children each with ASPIATIONS of lifetime energy appetites in the billions of KwHours at the rate of 75million children per year and rising, there is not enough OIL to meet demands without lethal global conflict.

On Kangaroo Island the preferred solution to a few hundred fluffy koalas causing the exact same kind of environmental problems, was for the dopey SA Govt to murder the excess bears but they caved to NEUTERING EVERY bear on the Island. Now that's a BIO-Engineered solution that works and when the rubber hits the road that is what YOUR politicians will do to you and your children!

And when will people understand that wave, wind and solar energy options all depend on OIL mainly for transport manufacturing and maintenance issues. They are not permanent energy options and without oil are NOT options at all.

As for space options, it will always cost ~$10,000 to put a kilogram of anything in orbit so that is not an option either.

Further carbon sequestration would be in operation by now except the cost of oil based fuels is holding it back. This patently is going to get worse as pump prices are telling each and every one of us.

Funny, I feel sorry for the neutered koalas. But if koalas posted the online crap I see here. If they defended their greed, sexual immaturity and wanton environmental destruction trying to cover the EVIL up in scientifically impossible schemes, I would vote to neuter the bloody lot of them too!